The Frontline Socialist Party has rejected the Government's proposal to extend judges' retirement age by two years, arguing the move undermines judicial independence rather than addressing corruption or court delays as claimed.
The Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) has questioned the Government's constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of all judges by two years, contending that the stated rationale does not withstand scrutiny. FSP Secretary for Education Pubudu Jayagoda argued at a media briefing that the Government's claim that the extension would expedite corruption-related cases was misleading, since such cases are typically not heard initially in the Supreme Court. He noted that judges handling these matters in lower courts—the Magistrates' Courts and High Courts—are predominantly between 30 and 50 years old, making the risk of disruption from retirements unlikely.
Jayagoda further rejected suggestions that only current judges could ensure accountability, describing such assertions as disrespectful to the judiciary and implying that newly appointed judges would lack integrity. He framed the proposal as a breach of public rights rather than an anti-corruption measure. The FSP politician pointed to numerous alternatives for addressing judicial delays, including filling vacancies in higher courts and recruiting additional judges and support staff. According to Jayagoda, the Government has allowed four vacancies in the Supreme Court and four in the Court of Appeal to remain unfilled, alongside approximately 50 vacancies each in pre-trial and Small Claims courts.
The FSP also highlighted a shortage of around 200 officers in the Attorney General's Department, questioning why the Government prioritises extending retirement ages while leaving critical positions vacant. Jayagoda suggested that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake possessed the authority to address these shortfalls immediately. Beyond this specific proposal, the FSP criticised both the Government and Opposition for a pattern of politically motivated judicial appointments over successive administrations, calling on the public to form an independent movement to oppose the amendment rather than align with either political side.
